View Single Post
Old 05-02-2019, 2:34 AM
LonghornBob LonghornBob is offline
Junior Member
CGN Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by BryMan92 View Post
I might be mistaken, but did not the Court presume that machineguns could be banned without actually stating so? At any rate, I suppose the logic could be that machineguns were regulated almost at the time of their existence (so long-standing compared to their existence) thus are not "common use".
Yes, that's right. Scalia presumed without deciding that machineguns could be banned.

Kavanaugh, in his dissent in Heller II (the case on DC's assault weapons ban), laid out what you stated that essentially machineguns were not in common use by the time the NFA was passed in 1934.

Here's the excerpt:

"By contrast [to semiautomatic rifles], full automatics were developed for the battlefield and were never in widespread civilian use in the United States. Rifle-caliber machine guns (excluding the Gatling gun, which required hand cranking) first saw widespread use in the European colonial powers’ African conquests of the 1890s. See JOHN ELLIS, THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF THE MACHINE GUN 79-107 (1986). Automatic, pistol-caliber machine guns were fielded by European militaries toward the end of World War I. The Thompson machine gun (commonly known as the “Tommy gun”) entered commercial sale in the United States in the mid-1920s but saw very limited civilian use outside of organized crime and law enforcement. See LEE KENNETT & JAMES LAVERNE ANDERSON, THE GUN IN AMERICA 203-04 (1975). Within less than a decade, the Tommy gun and other automatic weapons had been subjected to comprehensive federal regulation. National Firearms Act, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236 (1934); see also 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)."
Reply With Quote